W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Comments to “SE Free text tagging a Image”

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:13:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUHu_5rgrBFSi=HphzL=jvA5SavdOigQv_e4GEA+caaKLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
>> About the section:
>>
>> We have a section “2.1.3 Tags and Semantic Tags” and there we introduce
>> the class oa:Tag. However, we do not use it in this example; I think it is
>> missing.
>>
>> From the description in the section, it seems that semantic tags are those
>> tags corresponding to URIs? I do not think that is always the case.
>> “http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris” does correspond to a semantic entity but
>> “http://wikipedia.org/Paris/”  does not. I think that for semantic tags only
>> URIs corresponding to semantic entities should be use, any other thoughts
>> about it?

Yes, Semantic Tags should be non information resources to ensure that
there isn't a collision between someone using the same URI, but
intending it to be treated as a document rather than a concept.

> In that particular example I used a free text tag and so I am assuming the
> motivation ao:tagging is enough.

I would include the oa:Tag to make it clear that the text is a tag,
and not a comment.


> However, in general the point you raise is
> a general issue. The current spec allows classifying a URI as semantic tag
> by using oa:Tag. However, the spec says  also:

> "It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use the URI of a document as a semantic tag, as it
> might also be used as a regular Body in other Annotations which would
> inherit the oa:Tag class assignment. Instead a new URI should be created and
> linked to the document using an ontology appropriate to the situation."
>
> Which I believe it is addressing what you are asking.
> The problem arises when somebody uses document URIs as tags (not that
> uncommon).

I'm a little more optimistic. But without inventing lots of new
predicates (like we had with hasSemanticTag previously) and then also
for the multiplicity constructs, we can only do our best to recommend
good behavior.  Hopefully also there won't be many collisions, as it
seems unlikely that the document being used to tag something would
also be used as the body of an annotation where it was meant as a
comment or description.


>> One question not necessarily related to tags. Could I use annotations to
>> say that a 3D version of that image can be retrieved from “PDB link” in
>> format “XXX”? If yes, how could that being expressed in OA? In general, the
>> question is how to express links to other resources with annotations?
>
> Rob, was that the usage of the oa:linking motivation we removed?

We could certainly reintroduce it.    I'm in favor of having more
motivations, rather than fewer, to prevent future collisions where
multiple communities all mint something rather basic.  If I recall
correctly, it was seen as too similar to oa:annotating, which we now
don't have any more.

How about:
oa:linking  The motivation that represents an untyped link to a
resource related to the target.

Rob
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 17:14:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 January 2013 17:14:04 GMT